Slide Show

This blog is to present the ideas in the creation and evolution, trying to put them together and that everyone take their point of view. Enjoy it!

Creation vs. Evolution

Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., serves as president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary — the flagship school of the Southern Baptist Convention and one of the largest seminaries in the world. The debate over Darwinism rages on, with almost every week bringing a new salvo in the Great Controversy. The reason for this is simple and straightforward — naturalistic evolution is the great intellectual rival to Christianity in the Western world. It is the creation myth of the secular elites and their intellectual weapon of choice in public debate. In some sense, this has been true ever since Darwin. When Charles Darwin developed and published his theory of natural selection, the most obvious question to appear to informed minds was this: Can the theory of evolution be reconciled with the Christian faith? The emergence of evolution as a theory of origins and the existence of life forms presented a clear challenge to the account of creation offered within the Bible, especially in the opening chapters of Genesis. At face value, these accounts seem irreconcilable. There were a good many intrepid and honest souls in the nineteenth century who understood the reality that, if evolution is true, the Bible must be radically reinterpreted. Others went further and, like the New Atheists in our time, seized upon evolution as an intellectual weapon to be used against Christianity. There were others who attempted to mediate between evolution and Christianity. In the most common form of the argument, they asserted that the Bible tells the story of the who and the why of creation, but not the how. The how was left to empirical science and its theory of evolution. In more recent years, this argument has been made from the evolutionary side of the argument by the late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University, who proposed that the worlds of science and religious faith were completely separate, constituting “non-overlapping magisteria.” In effect, he argued that religion and science cannot conflict, since they do not address the same questions. The problem with this argument is obvious: Darwinism and Genesis do clearly overlap. The Bible does not merely speak of the who and the why. It also makes explicit claims concerning the how. Likewise, even a cursory review of the evolutionary literature indicates that evolutionary scientists routinely make assertions concerning the who and why questions. It is just not intellectually honest to argue that evolutionary theory deals only with the mechanisms of the existence of the Cosmos and that the Bible deals only with the meaning of creation. Another approach had been taken by some Christian theologians in the nineteenth century. In their own way, even some among the honored and orthodox “Princeton Theologians” attempted to argue that there was no necessary conflict between Genesis and Darwin. They were so convinced of the power of empirical science and of the authority of Scripture that they were absolutely sure that the progress of science would eventually prove the truthfulness of the Bible. What these theologians did not recognize was the naturalistic bent of modern science. The framers of modern evolutionary theory did not move toward an acknowledgment of divine causality. To the contrary, Darwin’s central defenders today oppose even the idea known as “Intelligent Design.” Their worldview is that of a sterile box filled only with naturalistic precepts. From the beginning of this conflict, there have been those who have attempted some form of accommodation with Darwinism. In its most common form, this amounts to some version of “theistic evolution” — the idea that the evolutionary process is guided by God in order to accomplish his divine purposes. Given the stakes in this public controversy, the attractiveness of theistic evolution becomes clear. The creation of a middle ground between Christianity and evolution would resolve a great cultural and intellectual conflict. Yet, in the process of attempting to negotiate this new middle ground, it is the Bible and the entirety of Christian theology that gives way, not evolutionary theory. Theistic evolution is a biblical and theological disaster. The mainstream doctrine of evolution held by the scientific establishment and tenaciously defended by its advocates does not even allow for the possibility of a divinely implanted meaning in the Cosmos, much less for any divine guidance of the evolutionary process. There has been an unrelenting push of evolutionary theory deeper and deeper into purely naturalistic assumptions and an ever-increasing hostility to Christian truth claims. On the other side of the equation, the injury to Christian convictions is incalculable. At the very least, the acceptance of evolutionary theory requires that the first two chapters of Genesis be read merely as a literary rendering that offers no historical data. But, of course, the injury does not end there. If evolution is true, then the entire narrative of the Bible has to be revised and reinterpreted. The evolutionary account is not only incompatible with any historical affirmation of Genesis, but it is also incompatible with the claim that all humanity is descended from Adam and the claim that in Adam all humanity fell into sin and guilt. The Bible’s account of the Fall and its consequences is utterly incompatible with evolutionary theory. The third chapter of Genesis is as problematic for evolutionary theory as the first two. The naturalistic evolutionists are now pressing their case in moral as well as intellectual terms. Increasingly, they are arguing that a refusal to accept evolution represents a thought crime of sorts. They are using all the tools and arguments at their disposal to discredit any denial of evolution and to marginalize voices who question the dogma of Darwinism. They are working hard to establish unquestioned belief in evolution as the only right-minded and publicly acceptable position. They have already succeeded among the intellectual elites. Their main project now is the projection of this victory throughout popular culture. Among the theistic evolutionists, the issues are becoming clearer almost every day that passes. Proponents of theistic evolution are now engaged in the public rejection of biblical inerrancy — with some calling the affirmation of the Bible’s inerrancy as an intellectual disaster and “intellectual cul-de-sac.” Others now openly assert that we must forfeit belief in an historical Adam, an historical Fall, and a universal Flood. Thus, the vise of evolutionary theory is now revealing the fault lines of the current debate. There can be no question but that the authority of the Bible and the truthfulness of the Gospel are now clearly at stake. The New Testament clearly establishes the Gospel of Jesus Christ upon the foundation of the Bible’s account of creation. If there was no historical Adam and no historical Fall, the Gospel is no longer understood in biblical terms. This is the new shape of the debate over evolution. We now face the undeniable truth that the most basic and fundamental questions of biblical authority and gospel integrity are at stake. Are you ready for this debate? I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler. This article appears in EX NIHILO, the current issue of The Southern Seminary Magazine. Read the entire issue here.

www.flickr.com Ir a la galería de Ceci González

Evolution and Religion

This is a collection of frequently asked questions and answers about the compatibility of belief in evolution and God from talk origins. There is no attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God, or the validity of any religion, as that is not the intent.

Doesn't evolution contradict religion?

Not always. Certainly it contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity. To scientifically test a religious belief one first must find some empirical test that gives different results depending on whether the belief is true or false. These results must be predicted before hand, not pointed to after the fact. Most religious beliefs don't work this way. Religion usually presupposes a driving intelligence behind it, and an intelligent being is not always predictable. Since experiments judging religious beliefs cannot have predictable results, and may give different results under the same circumstances it is not open to scientific inquiry. St. Augustine commented on this in The Literal Meaning of Genesis.
Some religious beliefs do make predictions. These predictions can be tested. If a religious belief fails a test, it is the test that contradicts that religious belief. The theory which makes the correct prediction should have nothing to say on the matter. This does not mean that scientists don't sometimes make the mistake of saying a theory contradicts something.

Isn't evolution a religion?

Evolution is based on the scientific method. There are tests that can determine whether or not the theory is correct as it stands, and these tests can be made. Thousands of such tests have been made, and the current theories have passed them all. Also, scientists are willing to alter the theories as soon as new evidence is discovered. This allows the theories to become more and more accurate as research progresses. Most religions, on the other hand, are based on revelations, that usually cannot be objectively verified. They talk about the why, not the how. Also, religious beliefs are not subject to change as easily as scientific beliefs. Finally, a religion normally claims an exact accuracy, something which scientists know they may never achieve.
Some people build up religious beliefs around scientific principles, but then it is their beliefs which are the religion. This no more makes scientific knowledge a religion than painting a brick makes it a bar of gold. So the answer is no, evolution is no more a religion than any other scientific theory.

 

Does evolution contradict creationism?

There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did. If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?

First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be disproven. Second, let us turn the question around. What if I asked you "If the story of the prodigal son didn't really happen, then is the whole Bible wrong?" Remember that the Bible is a collection of both stories and historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of the Bible would remain.

Evolution and Religion Can Coexist, Scientists Say

Look at this article I found:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1018_041018_science_religion_2.html

 Abstratct:

Stefan Lovgren
for National Geographic News

October 18, 2004

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein

Joel Primack has a long and distinguished career as an astrophysicist. A University of California, Santa Cruz, professor, he co-developed the cold dark matter theory that seeks to explain the formation and structure of the universe.

He also believes in God.


That may strike some people as peculiar. After all, in some corners popular belief renders science and religion incompatible.
Yet scientists may be just as likely to believe in God as other people, according to surveys. Some of history's greatest scientific minds, including Albert Einstein, were convinced there is intelligent life behind the universe. Today many scientists say there is no conflict between their faith and their work.
"In the last few years astronomy has come together so that we're now able to tell a coherent story" of how the universe began, Primack said. "This story does not contradict God, but instead enlarges [the idea of] God."
Evolution
The notion that science and religion are irreconcilable centers in large part on the issue of evolution. Charles Darwin, in his 1859 book The Origin of Species, explained that the myriad species inhabiting Earth were a result of repeated evolutionary branching from common ancestors.
One would be hard pressed to find a legitimate scientist today who does not believe in evolution. As laid out in a cover story in the November issue of National Geographic magazine, the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Yet in a 2001 Gallup poll 45 percent of U.S. adults said they believe evolution has played no role in shaping humans. According to the creationist view, God produced humans fully formed, with no previous related species.
But what if evolution is God's tool? Darwin never said anything about God. Many scientists—and theologians—maintain that it would be perfectly logical to think that a divine being used evolution as a method to create the world.

Isn't belief in evolution also a matter of faith?

Acceptance of evolution is not the same as a religious belief. Scientists' confidence about the occurrence of evolution is based on an overwhelming amount of supporting evidence gathered from many aspects of the natural world. To be accepted, scientific knowledge has to withstand the scrutiny of testing, retesting, and experimentation. Evolution is accepted within the scientific community because the concept has withstood extensive testing by many thousands of scientists for more than a century. 

Many religious beliefs do not rely on evidence gathered from the natural world. On the contrary, an important component of religious belief is faith, which implies acceptance of a truth regardless of the presence of empirical evidence for or against that truth. Scientists cannot accept scientific conclusions on faith alone because all such conclusions must be subject to testing against observations. Thus, scientists do not "believe" in evolution in the same way that someone believes in God.

What do you need for an evolution process?

Evolution?

The Teaching of Evolution in the Science Curriculum Controversy in Science

The Teaching of Evolution in the Science Curriculum Controversy in Science

Controversy has not been uncommon in the history of the scientific enterprise. Generally the controversies among scientists have centered around questions of the interpretation of scientific data and the validity of theories old or new. It is central to the scientific method that all hypotheses must be so constituted as to be subject to rejection on the basis of empirical evidence. Therefore, when a new hypothesis has been put forward it is immediately a potential object of controversy, of a process of "natural selection," so to speak. The hypothesis, in order to survive and become established as an accepted scientific theory, must survive numerous empirical tests. It may be a candidate to replace another long accepted theory, a theory in which some or many scientists have vested interests of one kind or another. Or other new hypotheses may be in competition with it. Controversy may well result, with more or less heated disagreement between two or more parties. Empirical science provides the means by which such a controversy can be moved toward resolution, and this involves the objective examination of all pertinent data and all logical implications of the data, with willingness to discuss all sides of the controversy in a logical, rational way. Professional scientists are bound to conduct themselves under such circumstances in a manner which reflects respect for those with whom they disagree. In scientific circles it is commonly assumed that all parties are motivated as professional members of the scientific community by a commitment to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Controversial Issues in the Science Classroom:
the Creation / Evolution Controversy

Controversy should not be excluded from the science classroom, but should be one of the means used to give students a correct understanding of the processes of science. It is necessary that controversial issues which arise in connection with the science curriculum be handled in the classroom in a way which helps all students, without compromising their personal beliefs, to mature in their understanding of how to relate to and work with others with whom they may have important differences, even strongly conflicting convictions. The procedures in the public schools for handling some controversial issues in the science curriculum have already been established by state legislation and actions by state boards of education. In California, for example, the correct procedure for teaching about reproductive biology and special accommodation for the laboratory dissection of animals are mandated in the California Education Code sections 51550 and 32255.1 [Chapter 65, Statutes of 1988], respectively. There has been, however, no definitive policy adopted for the treatment in the science classroom of theories of origins, i.e., the evolution/creation controversy. Private secular and religious schools have up to now enjoyed complete freedom to teach about theories of origins in any manner they may choose, without state influence or intervention.

All subjects included in the science curriculum must be taught in a manner which is at once scientifically, pedagogically, and legally and constitutionally correct. On each of these aspects much controversy has arisen in recent decades, between factions of the general public, in the ranks of scientists, and among educators. Often more heat than light has been generated, and as a result many teachers are fearful in their treatment of the subject of theories of origins, often compromising science and correct pedagogy, as well as the constitutional rights of students. Therefore, it is important that this Science Framework delineate unambiguously the fundamental principles and guidelines for the correct treatment of the origins issue in the science curriculum materials and classrooms. For this purpose the following is provided:

Erroneous Past Handling of
Theories of Origins in the Classroom

In the public controversy, legislation, and legal actions characterizing the past two decades of creation/evolution issue in the tax-funded educational system there have been numerous errors on the part of virtually all parties involved. Principal errors include the following:

1. Many secular scientists and educators who are personally committed to an evolutionary view of nature have insisted that all science education, especially biological science must be taught by indoctrination in evolution as a fact of earth history. They have also insisted that students be taught that belief in divine creation can have no part in their interpretation of the observed data of science or in their classroom discussions of the data and theories of science.
2. Conversely, many parents and other citizens, some active in science or science oriented professions, have insisted that creation, "creation science," or "scientific creationism" should be included in the science curriculum. Some have even attempted to convert this into a totally secular scientific subject, devoid of any religious content.
3. Most science textbooks and other curriculum materials in the past have offered no critical evaluation of evolutionary concepts, nor informed students of the problems, weaknesses and failures of evolutionary theories.
4. Boards of education, administrators, and teachers have sometimes attempted to muzzle students in the classroom by forbidding them to discuss their reasons for believing in creation and rejecting evolution.
5. There continue to be many reports by students of science teachers' ridiculing the concept of divine creation and those who believe in it.

The above cited actions are errors for the following reasons:

1. There is no place in science and, therefore, no place in science education for indoctrination, dogmatism or authoritarianism.
2. There is no place in science and, therefore, no place in science education for the protection of concepts and theories from criticism.
3. Science properly defined offers no justification for tying science exclusively to a materialistic philosophy or world view, making it by definition opposed to religious faith which holds to divine special creation. Thus, there is no justification for teaching that the evolutionary view of nature is the only one which is admissible for scientists.
4. Dogmatism, protectionism and exclusivism in the teaching of evolutionary ideas put the State, through its agents, the public school teachers, in the position of attempting to change the religious faith of students who believe in divine special creation. But the State has no compelling interest in changing the religious beliefs of students. By attempting to do so, the State violates the rights guaranteed to all students by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

When the State teaches students who hold to special divine creation as a part of their sincerely held religious faith, in effect, "You were not created, but you evolved from ancient ape-like animals," the State is really saying to them, "Your religious faith in the God of creation is a falsehood, and you cannot be `scientific' until you change your faith." This is a gross violation of the First Amendment's Free Exercise guarantee. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to all students equal treatment under the law and, therefore, a quality science education which is devoid of gratuitous insult to their religious faith or to them as religious believers.

It is obvious that the above cited errors must be corrected in the California public schools.

The Teaching of Evolution

The following policies are to be implemented in all curriculum materials and classroom teaching of science:

1. References to concepts, interpretations and theories relating to evolution must be properly qualified to reflect both the support and lack of support for them. Until such time as this is effected in the adoption of new curriculum materials, all dogmatism in current curriculum materials is to be identified and properly qualified by the teacher.

2. Students are to be given, in curriculum materials in the classroom, adequate access to scientific evidence and opinion, from the secular scientific literature and other qualified scientific literature, which reveal the problems, weaknesses and failures of evolutionary concepts as well as their successes and strengths.

3. Students are to be given the correct understanding of the relation of evolution to science, specifically, that although a majority of scientists may espouse an evolutionary view of the universe, life, species and man, their belief is not required by the definition of science for people to be scientists, teachers, or students of science. It is not acceptable to teach that "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," other than as the opinion expressed by one scientist, Theodosius Dobzhansky.

4. Students may not be forbidden to question or criticize any scientific theory or interpretation in the classroom. When evolutionary concepts are discussed in the curriculum materials or in the classroom, students should be given appropriate opportunity to introduce alternative, anti-evolutionary interpretations for discussion of the pertinent scientific evidence in the classroom. Differences of opinion, discussion and debate are proper in the teaching of science, because they help develop the critical thinking of students. The discussion of theological doctrines, however, is not appropriate in the science classroom. On the other hand, it is also wrong to advocate or promote a materialistic philosophical world view in the name of science.

5. The principal goal of science instruction is to produce students who know how to examine and evaluate all evidence pertinent to a question, dispassionately and logically, and who have a commitment to practice this process consistently in the search for knowledge and truth. Able to distinguish opinion from scientific fact, these students will understand that the final authority in science is the observable, reproducible scientific data. They will understand the relationship between the hypotheses, theories and laws of science. They will appreciate the place and importance in science of creative imagination or inspiration. And, finally, they will understand the freedom of all practitioners of science to espouse their own personal belief systems and to draw on them for inspiration, motivation and goals in their professional endeavors.

6. A correct, philosophically neutral definition of science is to be taught. This means that students are to understand that science is essentially a method for studying and understanding the working of the natural world and for testing all ideas about the natural world, and that neither the definition of science or the rules of its methodology restrict what a scientist, teacher or student of science may or may not believe. The students are to understand that all have freedom to function in science, provided simply that they with integrity perform in accord with the rules of the method of empirical research.

7. The public schools and teachers cannot be mandated to teach about creation in the science classroom, since creation is basically a theological concept. However, it is not allowable to ignore the fact that the concept of divine special creation is one that has been held historically and at present by many scientists. Nor is it permissible to teach or imply that a person in any way violates the canons of science by believing in creation and even conducting his or her scientific thought and research guided by that belief.

8. It is proper, even necessary, for the teacher to identify the two competing explanations of origins and to outline the fundamental assumptions of each perspective. This prepares students to make their own personal examinations of the controversy. Some of the basic assumptions are as follows:

Evolution
1) All basic biological designs and systems are the products of purely spontaneous materialistic processes, devoid of any intelligently directed plan, purpose or goal.
2) All species living and extinct are related by common descent from one or a few original simple organisms.
3) Biological variation has been effectively unlimited, in the sense that some original protist could evolve into the human species in three or four billion years.
Creation
1) All basic biological designs and systems are, indeed, the products of intelligent, purposeful design and special creation.
2) All species living and extinct have existed in groups or "kinds" which have always been separate from each other, separated by uncrossable genetic boundaries.
3) Biological variation is limited within the boundaries of the originally created kinds.

A science teacher is not "teaching religion in the science class" by outlining for the students the basic assumptions of organic evolution and the creation perspective for biology. This simply identifies the two alternative views in a rational way so that students can then pursue the controversy by further personal study, if they so desire. It also lays a proper groundwork for any classroom discussion of scientific evidence related to that controversy. And, finally, it gives students a correct basis for understanding that both perspectives involve certain faith propositions. This, in turn, helps engender in the students mutual respect for others with whom they may have very fundamental disagreements on matters both scientific and philosophical.

9. Since this Science Framework mandates a science curriculum which is empirical and encompasses a sequence of intermediate objectives and final objectives which stand related in a hierarchy of dependent facts, concepts and theories, it is in accord with the historical and logical process by which scientific knowledge has advanced. In this context, theories of origins are high level concepts which, for their understanding and critical evaluation, require much underlying knowledge of science and a degree of intellectual sophistication. Therefore, the concept of organic evolution should not be presented in textbooks or studied in the classroom until the high school level science courses. To present evolutionary concepts in elementary and junior high school courses without a thorough discussion of their empirical basis, is only to indoctrinate the students with authoritarian ideas. This is not in accord with either the method of empirical science or proper pedagogy, especially in a pluralistic society in which the creation/evolution issue is so controversial.